Re: Bag / Set ideas - making them substitutable for Arrays makes them more useful

it just squared? In the end we just need map:( closure, Set $data -- Set) as an overload. Or perhaps map:( closure, Iterable ::T $data -- T). Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- A.J. Perlis 1

Re: Smart match isn't on Bool

? Regards TSa -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- A.J. Perlis 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1/12 -- Srinivasa Ramanujan

Re: Smart match isn't on Bool

equivalence, not type equivalence). This is true only if you want to distinguish 1 and True which are the same value. But 42 should be distinct from this. Same goes for viaduct. So these three should be a valid disjoint set of choices that can be made given $something. Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable

Re: Smart match isn't on Bool

if for this? That would avoid the new keyword. Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- A.J. Perlis 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1/12 -- Srinivasa Ramanujan

Re: Suggested magic for a .. b

could result in a coercion to Sequence. Swapping the endpoints could mean swapping inside test to outside test. The only thing that is needed is to swap from to ||: $a .. $b # means $a = $_ $_ = $b if $a $b $b .. $a # means $b = $_ || $_ = $a if $a $b Regards TSa

Re: Type system for Perl 6

. E.g. you can declare a read/write attribute of that type. Regards TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- A.J. Perlis 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1/12 -- Srinivasa Ramanujan

Re: Type system for Perl 6

{ $_ 10 } is not a subtype of { $_ 20 }. So no predicate dispatch either. Someone should explain the dispatch algorithm to you. I don't remember exactly how the voting there works. This would explain what type narrowness in the spec means. Regards TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability

Re: How does List.map: { .say } work?

. That is, in the scope of the binding the object goes kind of naked. Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- A.J. Perlis 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1/12 -- Srinivasa Ramanujan

Re: Int/Rat max precision (was Re: r28882 - docs/Perl6/Spec)

are going in the wrong direction. Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- A.J. Perlis 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1/12 -- Srinivasa Ramanujan

Re: unusual invocants

a Dogwood class and two auxiliary proxy classes for the Dog and Wood roles? Isn't that too much effort? OTOH, a conversion routine could indeed return such a proxy if the original shall be kept unchanged. Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does

Re: role invocant slot in type sig (was: unusual invocants)

means Dog[::T:] Wood[T] which nicely gives the Dogwood implementation of bark as requested by the two roles. Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- A.J. Perlis 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1/12

Re: unusual invocants

. And the instanciating class might also be defaulted lexically. Essentially all types are then denominated in this form which uniquely identifies a role/class combination by means of the colon in brackets after the name. Regards TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare

role invocant slot in type sig (was: unusual invocants)

-Dogwood Dog doers are excluded unless they have a Dogwood coercion routine. Or they use the Dogwood class directly. Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- A.J. Perlis 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1/12

Re: unusual invocants

---this is what you call wearing a role hat. We should keep the class dispatch as simple as possible and not mix in the environment of the call into the meaning of an object! Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does not precede complexity

Re: unusual invocants

. Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- A.J. Perlis 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1/12 -- Srinivasa Ramanujan

Re: unusual invocants

methods on the object but this is a secondary concern. Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- A.J. Perlis 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1/12 -- Srinivasa Ramanujan

Re: Freezing role methods

. Regards TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- A.J. Perlis 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1/12 -- Srinivasa Ramanujan

Re: Synopsis 02: Range objects

, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- A.J. Perlis 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1/12 -- Srinivasa Ramanujan

Re: Synopsis 02: Range objects

of a good thing! Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- A.J. Perlis 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1/12 -- Srinivasa Ramanujan

Re: Synopsis 02: Range objects

'..'az'. I find this quite natural. Note that order is not a prerequisite for a notion of range and range iteration. I think of ranges more like set and set iteration. I'm going to post my take on the complex case elsewhere in this thread. Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability

Re: Synopsis 02: Range objects

of arbitrary dimension where one intersects hyperspheres around two points. One can also generalise to non-euclidean metrics, of course. Perhaps even a string distance function might work. Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does not precede

Re: Parameter binding

of signature and statement syntax inside \(). E.g. the question is if \($x + $y is copy) is valid. Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- A.J. Perlis 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1/12 -- Srinivasa Ramanujan

Re: Parameter binding

need to be careful with that particular monad^Wside effect. Actually not. Every code object invocation is a get-into-trouble example unless it is purely functional code. Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does not precede complexity

Re: Parameter binding

). The capture creation for the foo call should be strictly left to right and capturing the value at that moment. Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- A.J. Perlis 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1/12

Re: YAPC::EU and Perl 6 Roles

HaloO, Jon Lang wrote: I'd still like to get a synonym for mandate role, though - a word that captures the meaning of unit of behavior. A bit burdened with conflicting meaning but I think mixin is what you are looking for. Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity

Re: YAPC::EU and Perl 6 Roles

overridden. Ones with an implementation produce a warning if the composing class overrides it without some extra syntax. This bites only the case where the role provides a default implementation intended for overriding. Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R

Re: XOR does not work that way.

{ when TooMany {...} when TooFew {...} when True {...} } A nicer set of return values would be Many, One and Zero. Numeric values could be Many = -1, One = 1 and Zero = 0, so that they numerify nicely. So can we write that into the spec? Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable

Re: XOR does not work that way.

items. Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- A.J. Perlis 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1/12 -- Srinivasa Ramanujan

Re: Why pass by reference?

suffices. Most of the time not even that when the constness is known statically. Regards TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- A.J. Perlis 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1/12 -- Srinivasa Ramanujan

Re: LValues, types, mutability

is not failing over to method dispatch anymore. Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- A.J. Perlis 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1/12 -- Srinivasa Ramanujan

Re: Implicit threading vs Imperative barriers

it doesn't pay off. IOW, objects are best kept eager. Regards TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- A.J. Perlis 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1/12 -- Srinivasa Ramanujan

Re: Information Model manuscript, pt.2

from the body of the method? Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- A.J. Perlis 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1/12 -- Srinivasa Ramanujan

Re: Question for Larry

of binding? Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- A.J. Perlis 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1/12 -- Srinivasa Ramanujan

Re: Array variables as formal parameters ???

); } Note that due to contravariance the type constraint of $lhs should actually be the bottom type not Any. OTOH rw is invariant in general. Only here in assignment the $lhs is write-only. But Perl 6 hasn't specced that trait on parameters. Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability

Re: Array variables as formal parameters ???

does the programmer if she bothers to look them up. Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- A.J. Perlis 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1/12 -- Srinivasa Ramanujan

Re: junctions and conditionals

junction any(0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1) is before the block. Thus I'm opting for any(-4..6). Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- A.J. Perlis 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1/12 -- Srinivasa Ramanujan

Re: [Fwd: Re: junctions and conditionals]

an auto-threading point before 0 = -1 | +1 = 0 and an assembly point after it should result in any(False,False) which is false. Regards TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- A.J. Perlis 1 + 2 + 3 + 4

Re: S08 Draft questions (Captures and Signatures)

are allowed outside of a class scope. That is, the type constraint of the invocant inserts it into the class. Perhaps in a non-privileged form, i.e. without access to private attributes and methods. Does that make sense? Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare

Re: simultaneous conditions in junctions

, then perl6 junctions are not really modelling quantum superpositions I agree. We should make sure that junctions model quantum computations. Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- A.J. Perlis

Re: On Sets (Was: Re: On Junctions)

duplicated values, as expected from a set. Even the homogeneous case should adhere to numeric semantics. Set operations are with parens. So disjoint union creation is (+). We could try to get a meta parens so that (X+) is conceivably auto-generated. OTOH it collides with (+) visually. Regards, TSa

Re: Logo considerations

provides which is relatively new to languages in general. The concept of superimposed shapes is very well done in the Trisquirclehedron. See http://lucacardelli.name/Topics/TheoryOfObjects/ObjectSubject.html Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare

Re: a junction or not

or perhaps like Junction::Any, Junction::All, Junction::One and Junction::None. Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- A.J. Perlis 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1/12 -- Srinivasa Ramanujan

Re: new Capture behavior (Was: Re: r25685 - docs/Perl6/Spec)

methods one way or another. But it seems open classes have acquired a design smell of late. Or why is the process called monkey patching? Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- A.J. Perlis 1 + 2

Re: [pugs-commits] r25698 - docs/Perl6/Spec/S32-setting-library

HaloO, Larry Wall wrote: Although, interestingly, if the method is exported as a multi it should automatically add in the current role or class as a constraint on the (former) invocant so that multi dispatch will not overgeneralize. I would expect class Foo { method bar {...}

Re: Range and continuous intervals

. But I prefer Interval because this is the name of the concept in math. Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- A.J. Perlis 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1/12 -- Srinivasa Ramanujan

Re: Comparing inexact values (was Re: Temporal changes)

by the other cases because that would produce 0..^0 which fails for 0 ~~ 0..^0 since that means 0 = 0 0 which is false. Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- A.J. Perlis 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1

Re: Comparing inexact values (was Re: Temporal changes)

) == sin($x + 2*pi) even though it is imaginable if $x contains a Num that has pi as approximation closure so that an exact modulo can be put into the approximation closure of sin's return value. Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does

Re: Comparing inexact values (was Re: Temporal changes)

are at it .ppb and .ppt are common as well. At least Wikipedia has them. There one also finds that ratios are expressed with the SI prefixes like nano without a unit or U for uno. But I guess at the latest this all belongs into a Ratio (standard?) module. Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price

Re: min= (from Rakudo Built-ins Can Now Be Written In Perl 6)

. Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- A.J. Perlis 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1/12 -- Srinivasa Ramanujan

Re: Comparing inexact values (was Re: Temporal changes)

numeric $x ~~ $y simply mean $x == $y. What is the benefit? Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- A.J. Perlis 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1/12 -- Srinivasa Ramanujan

Re: Temporal changes

and 4..5 are equal as duration but not equal as ranges. Here I assume that == is included in the list of operators that S03 claims to be sensibly overloaded. That is 2..3 == 4..5 means 2 == 4 3 == 5 which is false. Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare

Re: More trees and roles

to explicitly skip the parent. But this can be easily remedied with a method with a different name. E.g. we could introduce .nodes in RootedTree and have a .trees method in Tree. From this we see that these two roles should be designed together. Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability

Re: Detecting side-effects in Perl 6 (Was: Re: infectious traits and pure functions)

parameters and on itself. OTOH, S06 already propose an optimization hint, which should do what you want, look for is cached. But that is for a completely orthogonal kind of optimization. Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does

Re: Detecting side-effects in Perl 6 (Was: Re: infectious traits and pure functions)

equality? Through smart matching? Is that the default for a where clause with no operator? BTW, what is the supposed difference between these two forms? I would favour the first on the footing that the where clause belongs to the type. Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability

Re: References to parts of declared packages

to the proposed form class A::Foo {...} class A::Bar {...} Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- A.J. Perlis 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1/12 -- Srinivasa Ramanujan

Re: References to parts of declared packages

but I think that blurs the distinction between packages and classes. If they are all the same anyway then why have the module, package and class keywords? This is a bit too much redundancy for me. Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does

Re: returning one or several values from a routine

, as a hash. Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- A.J. Perlis 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1/12 -- Srinivasa Ramanujan

Re: Proposal: Make @a and @@a different variables

the syntactic structure of the source code? Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- A.J. Perlis 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1/12 -- Srinivasa Ramanujan

Re: What does a Pair numify to?

to pass the pair to say as argument to be printed instead of a named argument that influences how the printing is done. Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- A.J. Perlis 1 + 2 + 3 + 4

Re: Proposal: Make @a and @@a different variables

the choice of @@a versus @a is a bit like the choice between a @a and an anonymous array in a $ var ala $a = [] which can be handled through $a almost like @a. @a =!= @@a :test; BTW, what does the :test mean there? Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare

Re: Roles and IO?

of it by juxtaposition. This allows signatures to state their requirements clearly and machine enforcable. IOW, your approach precisely solves the problem that fat interfaces can raise errors only lately, that is when a call is attempted. Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity

Re: What does a Pair numify to?

whether always-2 is a good semantics, or whether one would prefer some other default. My idea is to let a pair numify to whatever the value numifies to. Same thing with stringification. In general I think that a pair should hide its key as far as possible if used as non-pair. Regards, TSa

Re: Smooth numeric upgrades?

HaloO, Darren Duncan wrote: Michael G Schwern wrote: TSa (Thomas Sandlaß) wrote: I want to stress this last point. We have the three types Int, Rat and Num. What exactly is the purpose of Num? The IEEE formats will be handled by num64 and the like. Is it just there for holding properties

Re: why infix:div:(Int, Int -- Rat)

need to be accompanied with a mod. That allows div on two Ints to return an Int which complies to the general prescription for overloading div and mod homogenously. Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does not precede complexity

Re: why infix:div:(Int, Int -- Rat)

that delivers both values in one go. Copying that prior art would simply mean to define divmod. I'm fine with that. Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- A.J. Perlis 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1

why infix:div:(Int, Int -- Rat)

to the Rat versions of operators? Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- A.J. Perlis 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1/12 -- Srinivasa Ramanujan

Re: how to write literals of some Perl 6 types?

out, you can always use something like Weekday::Sun eq Star::Sun or Weekday::Sun == 0 if you want string or numeric equality.) Yes, these comparisons are well defined in the Str and Num domains. Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does

Re: how to write literals of some Perl 6 types?

these be identical irrespective the fact that they come from three different type domains? How is that implemented? Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- A.J. Perlis 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1/12

Re: how to write literals of some Perl 6 types?

or a set of sets. Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- A.J. Perlis 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1/12 -- Srinivasa Ramanujan

Re: how to write literals of some Perl 6 types?

and in dispatch. Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- A.J. Perlis 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1/12 -- Srinivasa Ramanujan

Re: how to write literals of some Perl 6 types?

if the auto-generation of operators can be requested as follows: enum A « :One(1), :Two(2), :Three(3) » does Int; Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- A.J. Perlis 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1/12

Re: Should a closure-in-a-string get the placeholder parameters from its surroundings?

shall make that implicit, right? Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- A.J. Perlis 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1/12 -- Srinivasa Ramanujan

Re: [perl #60674] sign($x) always returns 1 when $x ~~ Complex

. Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- A.J. Perlis 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1/12 -- Srinivasa Ramanujan

Re: Are eqv and === junction aware?

|| 2 ~~ Junction || 3 ~~ Junction Note that this demotion to object means that any(1,2,3) ~~ Int evaluates to false because the lhs is of type AnyJunction of Int. To me this is the same as [1,2,3] ~~ Int which is false because there is an Array of Int not an Int. Regards, TSa

Re: Collapsing Junction states?

of == to be false because there is a one(1,0,1) junction? As Duncan points out junctions are immutable values and as such the % autothreads but the resulting values are assembled into a new junction according to the general rules, i.e. one(0,1). The number of elements in one(1,2,3) is not preserved. Regards, TSa

Re: Collapsing Junction states?

) that is not auto-threaded. BTW, would it be useful to have auto-threading for Set as well? That is, Junction inherits it from Set. Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- A.J. Perlis 1 + 2 + 3 + 4

Re: Collapsing Junction states?

and the juxtaposition Dog Cat. Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- A.J. Perlis 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1/12 -- Srinivasa Ramanujan

Re: Collapsing Junction states?

False ;) Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- A.J. Perlis 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1/12 -- Srinivasa Ramanujan

Are eqv and === junction aware?

is Int and any(1,2,3).WHAT is Junction. Or are my expectations wrong? Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- A.J. Perlis 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1/12 -- Srinivasa Ramanujan

Re: More about arrayref/hashref in spectest suite

dispatch targets treat the rhs different, of course. The ArrayItem case builds an arrayref, the ArraySlice assigns the elements with flattened @x. Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- A.J

Re: Signatures and matching (was Re: XPath grammars (Was: Re: globs and trees in Perl6))

HaloO, David Green wrote: On 2008-Oct-22, at 10:03 am, TSa wrote: Note that types have a fundamentally different task in a signature than name and position have. The latter are for binding arguments to parameters. The types however are for selection of dispatch target. Names do that too; I

Re: globs and rules and trees, oh my!

there are signatures in rules but I can't find it in S05. Where is it? Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- A.J. Perlis 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1/12 -- Srinivasa Ramanujan

Re: [svn:perl6-synopsis] r14586 - doc/trunk/design/syn

context it's just 0,1,2,3,4,5 I think that's just wicked cool. Very subtle it is. And I wonder how exactly this is implemented. I mean the pairs returned from the generator are captured into what, protoarrays that auto-flatten into a list and become real arrays in a slice? Regards, TSa

Re: [svn:perl6-synopsis] r14585 - doc/trunk/design/syn

an appropriate value for a Nothing value. Why having that only for meta operators? Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- A.J. Perlis 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1/12 -- Srinivasa Ramanujan

Re: Smooth numeric upgrades?

for the programmer to specify how these approximations shall be handled. Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- A.J. Perlis 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1/12 -- Srinivasa Ramanujan

Re: globs and trees in Perl6

of using the type system to represent trees and dispatch for transformations like CDuce does it. See http://www.cduce.org. Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- A.J. Perlis 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1

Re: Recommended Perl 6 best practices?

([!==] $a,$b,$c) mean !([==] $a,$b,$c). I have no idea how difficult such negation propagation in parse trees is. Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- A.J. Perlis 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1/12

Re: Recommended Perl 6 best practices?

HaloO, one nifty thing could be negation propagation in chained comparisons: ($a ne $b ne $c) === !($a eq $b || $b eq $c). This again insures some sanity if any of $a, $b or $c are junctions. BTW, the boolean connectives , || and ^^ shouldn't be auto-threaded through junctions. Regards, TSa

Re: Split with negative limits, and other weirdnesses

and use a name like UInt that has other uses as well. Are there pragmas that turn signature failures into undef return values? Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- A.J. Perlis 1 + 2 + 3 + 4

Re: Subroutine parameter with trait and default.

* unless we manage to split the meaning of the type slot in 'rw' parameter declarations between input and output. Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- A.J. Perlis 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1/12

Re: Should $.foo attributes without is rw be writable from within the class

HaloO, Daniel Ruoso wrote: Qui, 2008-09-18 às 18:11 +0200, TSa escreveu: Shouldn't there be a warning in B that $!B::bar overwrites $!A::bar without an accessor? Actually, $!B::bar doesn't overwrite $!A::bar... the problem is simply that $!A::bar is not visible from inside B, and therefore

Re: How to define a new value type?

HaloO, John M. Dlugosz wrote: TSa Thomas.Sandlass-at-vts-systems.de |Perl 6| wrote: Is it generally foreseen that an object knows about the containers it is stored in? Yes. But it is not generally the case that this is the same container as the caller is holding. Detailed specifications

Re: Should $.foo attributes without is rw be writable from within the class

HaloO, Carl Mäsak wrote: I really like all the replies I got to this; thank you Moritz, Jonathan, TSa, Larry, John and Damian. It was a pleasure to be useful. From the feedback I received, I will now do the following: 1. Remove is rw from all attributes that aren't supposed to be writable

Re: How to define a new value type?

in the invocant slot. But the 'is rw' on the invocant has the drawback that calling with a string literal is precluded. Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- A.J. Perlis 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1/12

Re: How to define a new value type?

HaloO, Moritz Lenz wrote: TSa wrote: The 'is rw' is on the method but I guess it is foreseen that the result is stored in $string without preserving the identity of the string? No. It means that the Str object has to get hold of the container in which it is stored, and store a modified copy

Re: Should $.foo attributes without is rw be writable from within the class

and makes base methods future proof with respect to deriving classes. Your 100% rw observation then to me indicates that OO is more about data sharing than method dispatch. Note that rw accessors are particularly difficult to handle in typesafe mode. Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price

Re: How to define a new value type?

? Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- A.J. Perlis 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1/12 -- Srinivasa Ramanujan

Re: How to define a new value type?

clones the value to be stored in the lhs container after being checked against the container's constraint. Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. -- A.J. Perlis 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1/12

Re: adverbial form of Pairs notation question

{*} = Whatever; %h{*+3} = Whatever plus three; I guess for hashes there is no slicing implied by the latter two cases, so these would use the .WHICH to build the index. Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity -- C.A.R. Hoare Simplicity does not precede complexity

Re: Iterator semantics

by the assignment to @a. When this happens the singly assigned former content of @a is snaphot by the iterator. This also preserves the former lazyness state. If possible the optimizer factors out the assignments after the loop. Regards, TSa. -- The unavoidable price of reliability is simplicity

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >